4 ms·

This is hilarious. Amazon: "How can you choose MICROSOFT?! We're the best" DoD: "Uh, sure, but we like Microsoft." Zon: "BUT WE'RE THE BEST. DONT YOU UNDERSTAN

by kpmcc 6y ago

This is hilarious. Amazon: "How can you choose MICROSOFT?! We're the best" DoD: "Uh, sure, but we like Microsoft." Zon: "BUT WE'RE THE BEST. DONT YOU UNDERSTAND" DoD: "Uh, no" Zon: "BUT, BUT, BUT THAT'S NOT FAIR" DoD: "Tough."

DetroitThrow 6y ago
Choosing a contractor out of personal preference of the president is why the laws around federal bidding were created in the first place - contracts paid by taxpayers are intended to be based on the merit of the bid.
- smabie 6y ago
  Not exactly, women/minority owned companies are often explicitly favored in the bidding process. It really depends though, as different government agencies have different priorities and criteria.
  - DetroitThrow 6y ago
    >Not exactly, women/minority owned companies are explicitly favored in the bidding process. The exact opposite is true: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/04/women-owned-biz-receive-fraction-of-fed-contracts/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/04/women-owned-biz-rec... Where did you even hear this claim?
    - Kalium 6y ago
      They're describing a procurement process that is designed to favor ownership by women, minority groups, veterans, and disabled veterans in particular. Programs like this enter into it: https://business.defense.gov/Small-Business/WOSB/ https://business.defense.gov/Small-Business/WOSB/ You're absolutely correct that the outcome is quite transparently wildly inequitable. I think it's possible that it could be the case that both assertions could be correct at the same time.
    - smabie 6y ago
      I didn't hear about this. I was a party to such a bidding process at a government agency.
      - DetroitThrow 6y ago
        Your updated comment is much less untrue, though the GAO reports widespread fraud in the procurement processes for these minority, veteran, and women owned businesses as described in the above link.
        srtjstjsj 6y ago
        That's the only practical response to a ridiculous law. Affirmative Action for capital owners is absurd.
- busterarm 6y ago
  It's less the personal preference of the president and more the DoD. Microsoft has a decades long good relationship with the DoD, specifically on the security and access control side of things.
benmller313 6y ago
Well it's not that hilarious, you would hope that the DoD actually does have some kind of justification than "uh no" and "tough" about how its spending 10 billion dollars.
Barrin92 6y ago
this is a really silly post for two reasons. First Amazon actually makes a fairly specific case, namely that they would have been cheaper by a fairly significant margin. Secondly I very much hope government procurement to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars follows objective criteria rather than someone at the DoD going "huh, okay".
amznthrwaway 6y ago
I'm sure you'd find it equally hilarious if Obama directed multi-billion dollar contracts based on personal vendettas.

by kpmcc 6y ago

DetroitThrow 6y ago

Choosing a contractor out of personal preference of the president is why the laws around federal bidding were created in the first place - contracts paid by taxpayers are intended to be based on the merit of the bid.

smabie 6y ago
Not exactly, women/minority owned companies are often explicitly favored in the bidding process. It really depends though, as different government agencies have different priorities and criteria.
- DetroitThrow 6y ago
  >Not exactly, women/minority owned companies are explicitly favored in the bidding process. The exact opposite is true: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/04/women-owned-biz-receive-fraction-of-fed-contracts/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/04/women-owned-biz-rec... Where did you even hear this claim?
  - Kalium 6y ago
    They're describing a procurement process that is designed to favor ownership by women, minority groups, veterans, and disabled veterans in particular. Programs like this enter into it: https://business.defense.gov/Small-Business/WOSB/ https://business.defense.gov/Small-Business/WOSB/ You're absolutely correct that the outcome is quite transparently wildly inequitable. I think it's possible that it could be the case that both assertions could be correct at the same time.
  - smabie 6y ago
    I didn't hear about this. I was a party to such a bidding process at a government agency.
    - DetroitThrow 6y ago
      Your updated comment is much less untrue, though the GAO reports widespread fraud in the procurement processes for these minority, veteran, and women owned businesses as described in the above link.
      - srtjstjsj 6y ago
        That's the only practical response to a ridiculous law. Affirmative Action for capital owners is absurd.
busterarm 6y ago
It's less the personal preference of the president and more the DoD. Microsoft has a decades long good relationship with the DoD, specifically on the security and access control side of things.

benmller313 6y ago

Well it's not that hilarious, you would hope that the DoD actually does have some kind of justification than "uh no" and "tough" about how its spending 10 billion dollars.

Barrin92 6y ago

this is a really silly post for two reasons. First Amazon actually makes a fairly specific case, namely that they would have been cheaper by a fairly significant margin. Secondly I very much hope government procurement to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars follows objective criteria rather than someone at the DoD going "huh, okay".

amznthrwaway 6y ago

I'm sure you'd find it equally hilarious if Obama directed multi-billion dollar contracts based on personal vendettas.